I'm in favor of either of these. While we are discussing this, we should also agree on how to tag bicycle lanes that are unmarked. We have a surprising number of these in my area of the world. They have no signs (I know, they are no longer required to) and no markings within the lanes, but they clearly are intended to be bicycle lanes-they have the dashed pavement approaching intersections, and deviations to the left of right-turn-only lanes. Should these be "cycleway=unmarked_lane", which I believe you have used, or "cycleway=lane, cycleway:marking=unmarked" or "cycleway=lane, marking:cycleway=unmarked"?
On 2/19/2012 19:46:07 -0500 Nathan Edgars II wrote: To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > >On 2/19/2012 5:34 PM, Humphries, Grant wrote: >> I've proposed a tag for buffered bicycle lanes, see the proposal here >><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway%3Dbuffered_lane>. Any >> feedback is appreciated. > >It seems like it would be better as an additional tag like >cycleway:buffer=yes, keeping cycleway=lane for backwards compatibility. >By the way, it's wrong to say that it "is not intended for travel by any >mode", since you have to cross it to reach the parking. Ed Hillsman
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
